Kleijn, D., Baquero, R.A., Clough, Y., Diaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernandez, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Johl, R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E.J.P., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J., West, T.M. and Yela, J.L. (2006) Mixed Biodiversity Benefits of Agri-Environment Schemes in Five European Countries. Ecology Letters, 9, 243-254.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Providing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services through Common Pool Resource Management as Hybrid Institution: On Eco-Net Advances and Payments for ESS in Cultural Landscapes

  AUTHORS: Ernst-August Nuppenau

  KEYWORDS: Common Property Management, Competition between Communities, ESS Regulations

  JOURNAL NAME: Natural Resources, Vol.8 No.7, July 31, 2017

  ABSTRACT: In many rural areas the management of natural resources is confronted with the tragedy of the common problem; not only historically but also in modern times. Especially where biodiversity loss appears and ecosystem services (ESS) decline, the lack of public management might be related to inappropriate institutional setups. Two distinct directions of thought prevail on the subject. On one hand, proponents of property rights and minimal state intervention eagerly analyse the feat of modern institutions and view private property and payments for ecosystem services (PES) as solution. On the other hand, common pool resource management (CPM) has regained interest because nature is not a straight commodity and cooperation in ESS provision is needed (partly also to facilitate PES). In this paper, the two aspects are combined in a hybrid institution. We suggest a new way of approaching institutional questions in ESS provision as synthesis of private and publically controlled ESS provision. It is contemplated as ESS governance of local eco-nets given the potential for inclusion of public management. In principle, the result is a controlled framework of land sharing between farm land (private ownership) and communally managedland (public ownership). Some land is devoted to hedges, wetlands, etc. Land is an immobile resource and can be used for EESs based on planned species prevalence, whereas communities compete also for labour which can move (or not). Governance is acting in competing constituencies and is a mean to control the regulating entities (public ESS management). At a meta-level we combine the need for public management with advantages of a competitive neo-classical framework. This contribution to CPM investigates a model of a group whose well-being is based on ESS provision in a cultural landscape. By statutory regulations, land (field margins), is ex-tracted from farms for ESS; in particular a leader (called reeve) guides farmers. Two institutions are compared: (1) labour in public land for ESS based farming (i.e.it is controlled by public authority), or (2) it can migrate seeking higher rents in neighbouring communities.